In Australia with similar parking companies they have to prove that the losses incurred would amount to what they are trying to invoice.
That is, the invoiced amount can’t be a penalty, it can only be up to the amount required to recoup the financial loss they would incur from being unable to rent out that spot for the duration under their usual rates. This is the basic “making them whole again” principle of compensation that applies in the legal system when parties are injured.
The “penalty” amount that they attempt to invoice is thus pretty difficult for them to justify, seeing that all day parking can usually be had for $20 or so.
It’s not mentioned in the article, but how on earth did they cite her for 2000 in fingers in 5 minutes?
Hopefully any judge who saw that would dismiss it as unreasonable
In Australia with similar parking companies they have to prove that the losses incurred would amount to what they are trying to invoice.
That is, the invoiced amount can’t be a penalty, it can only be up to the amount required to recoup the financial loss they would incur from being unable to rent out that spot for the duration under their usual rates. This is the basic “making them whole again” principle of compensation that applies in the legal system when parties are injured.
The “penalty” amount that they attempt to invoice is thus pretty difficult for them to justify, seeing that all day parking can usually be had for $20 or so.
It says the £2000 were accumulated over 10 different events. So, it’s more like £200 fine for 5 minutes - which still seems ridiculous.
And that’s why I shouldn’t read at 3am
That’s still crazy, I agree